Re: [asa] The Barr quote - observations on critical responses to Barr

Rich said: It is unfair because it is special pleading. I am sure that YEC
accepts nothing else of Barr and his colleagues while it ignores a wide
swath of conservative linguistic scholarship. If Barr is considered
untrustworthy everywhere else why accept him here only because it advances
your point?

I respond: Exactly. And I'd also add that unless the full context of
Barr's position is understood and provided, it is also either uninformed or
perhaps disingenuous, because Barr's position is a hermeneutical one as well
as a linguistic one.

Folks like Archer start with the hermeneutical position that while Gen. 1-11
are basic narrative history, scripture does not err and that it is
legitimate to "integrate the data from general revelation" with scripture
such that the meaning of the text makes sense in light of general revelation
without the text being in "error." Barr's view is that this hermeneutic is
nonsense. The text simply means what it says on its face, and if this is
"error," it's error -- the meaning and authority of the text are located
elsewhere. In the common YEC heremeneutic, the text simply means what it
says on its face, and if information from general revelation seems to
contradict the common sense reading, the interpretation of general
revelation must be mistaken. Barr's and the YEC's hermeneutic are at
therefore opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd suggest that Blocher and
Walton are somewhere else on the spectrum -- the level of "integration"
Archer wanted might not be possible, but the text might still not be in
"error" because the literary genre is not really so commonsensical as the
Archers, Barrs, or YEC's suggest. This is how I see the spectrum (hopefully
formatting is preserved):

 "common sense" reading / -- mixed generic complexity -- generic
complexity / -- "common sense" / -- "common sense" /
scripture in error and accommodation to
scripture not in error integrate general general revelation
                  : human
error
revelation in error
                  :
:
: : :
                  :
:
: : :
                  :
:
: : :
            Barr Enns, Sparks
Blocher, Walton Archer YEC

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On May 17, 2008, at 6:55 AM, David Heddle wrote:
>
> David,
>>
>> But why is it misplaced? YECs use Barr as a scholar who affirms their
>> claim that the only reasonable interpretation of the writer of Genesis was
>> yom = ordinary day. That supports YECism. The fact the he then uses that as
>> part of an argument against inerrancy is unimportant. They can agree that
>> from that point on, they diverge from Barr.
>>
>> To me it seems like a fair argument for YECs to make.
>>
>> David Heddle
>>
>
>
> It is unfair because it is special pleading. I am sure that YEC accepts
> nothing else of Barr and his colleagues while it ignores a wide swath of
> conservative linguistic scholarship. If Barr is considered untrustworthy
> everywhere else why accept him here only because it advances your point?
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.